Part Two: Manitowoc Judges, Recovery Programs, and the Limits of Bail

Judge Jerilyn Dietz nomination for an "Ally" award

The recent debate in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, has centered on the efficiency of the judicial system and the question of accountability for the county’s low recidivism rates. Many have criticized Circuit Court Commissioner Patricia Koppa for what they perceive as leniency during bail hearings. However, a deeper look suggests that the responsibility extends beyond the commissioner, pointing toward the presiding judges whose policies, decisions, and public affiliations may influence outcomes.

On Wednesday, Commissioner Koppa faced renewed scrutiny when a victim spokesperson requested a high cash bail to prevent the defendant from committing further crimes. While this brought immediate attention, the broader question remains: Does recidivism rely solely on the amount of bail set? Bail is merely the first step in a complex judicial process, and decisions made at later stages, including sentencing and diversion programs, often have a far greater impact on whether an individual reoffends.

In a previous VBNN article, the relationship between Manitowoc County judges and recovery organizations, specifically the Light House Recovery Community Center (LRCC), was questioned for potential conflicts of interest and breaches of public trust. Judges Robert Dewane, Anthony Lambrecht, Jerilyn Dietz, and Mark Rohr have all been publicly recognized and awarded by LRCC. Judge Rohr, for example, hosted weekly cooking sessions, with the organization promoting him as the host and quoting him as saying, "Bring your knives from last week." Such public participation raises concerns about impartiality, particularly when individuals connected to these organizations appear in the judges’ courtrooms.

Questionable Sentencing Decisions

In 2021, Judge Jerilyn Dietz sentenced a man involved in a high-profile drug case to eight years of probation, staying the prison sentence, citing her belief that he should have the opportunity to “teach others about sobriety.” The individual had originally been charged with second-degree reckless homicide, also referred to as a Len Bias case, as well as manufacturing and delivery of a schedule 1/2 narcotic. He ultimately pled to first-degree reckless endangerment and delivery of fentanyl.

The case draws parallels to the Len Bias tragedy, in which a college basketball player died from a cocaine overdose shortly after being selected second overall in the 1986 NBA Draft. The resulting Anti-Drug Abuse Act, signed by President Ronald Reagan on October 27, 1986, established mandatory minimum sentences of 20 years for cases involving drug distribution leading to death. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the state attorney amended the case to reduced charges, and Judge Dietz’s sentencing allowed the individual to avoid prison entirely unless probation was violated.

District Attorney Jacalyn LaBre expressed concern at the time, stating that a probation sentence with no prison time would “depreciate the seriousness of the situation.” Judge Dietz, however, justified her decision by emphasizing that incarceration alone does not prevent drug addiction or related offenses. In doing so, she treated the defendant more as an addict than as the dealer responsible for the death. Support from the executive director of LRCC, who called him “a man of service,” further influenced the outcome. Today, the defendant continues to serve the recovery community, but the family of the victim has lost a loved one permanently.

Disparities in Plea Agreements

In February, Judge Dietz rejected a plea deal for Timothy Haschultz, charged in the death of seven-year-old Ethan Haschultz. Ethan had tragically died while in the care of Timothy Haschultz, following his removal by Human Services from the care of his mother. Judge Dietz cited discomfort with the agreement, stating it “did not serve the public interest.” Notably, the mother of the child, who opposed the plea deal, is both a member and employee of LRCC, the same organization that has publicly recognized and worked with the judges.

Accountability Beyond Bail

These cases illustrate that bail is only the beginning stage of a criminal case. While Commissioner Koppa sets bail within the framework established by the presiding judges, the judges themselves have the authority to influence sentencing, diversion, and participation in recovery programs. Repeatedly, defendants connected to LRCC, or similar programs have received opportunities to avoid or minimize criminal penalties, raising the question of selective accountability.

The judicial system must balance rehabilitation with public safety and fairness. However, multiple overdose deaths have occurred in recovery homes housing members of these programs, underscoring the consequences when accountability is uneven. While rehabilitation programs are vital, the repeated leniency for certain defendants calls into question the impartiality of judges who both preside over cases and publicly participate in the organizations providing these programs.

Ultimately, the focus on Commissioner Koppa for bail decisions obscures the more significant issue: the judges who establish policy, influence outcomes, and maintain close relationships with recovery organizations must be held to the same level of public scrutiny. Without accountability at the bench, questions of fairness, ethics, and justice remain unresolved.

Constitutional Concerns: Bail Set Before Hearings

An emerging concern involves instances where defendants appear before Commissioner Koppa for bail hearings, only to be informed that the presiding judge has already set bail. In such cases, Commissioner Koppa has stated, "there was nothing she could do about it." This practice raises significant constitutional questions.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be informed of the charges and to have an impartial tribunal. If a judge sets bail before a hearing, it could be argued that the defendant is deprived of an impartial determination of bail, as the decision has already been made. This preemptive action may violate the defendant's right to due process, as it undermines the principle that bail should be determined based on the facts and circumstances presented during the hearing.

Furthermore, the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail. If bail is set without considering the defendant's ability to pay or the specifics of the case, it could result in excessive bail, infringing upon constitutional protections.

While Wisconsin law allows judges to set bail prior to a hearing in certain circumstances, such as when a defendant is arrested without a warrant, the practice of setting bail without a hearing and then informing the defendant that nothing can be done about it may contravene constitutional rights. The lack of an opportunity for the defendant to present arguments or evidence before bail is set could be seen as a denial of due process.

These constitutional concerns highlight the need for transparency and adherence to legal standards in the bail-setting process. Ensuring that defendants have a fair opportunity to contest bail decisions is essential to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and protect individual rights.